Closed-Loop Finite-Time Analysis of Suboptimal Online Control
About
Suboptimal methods in optimal control arise due to a limited computational budget, unknown system dynamics, or a short prediction window among other reasons. Although these methods are ubiquitous, their transient performance remains relatively unstudied. We consider the control of discrete-time, nonlinear time-varying dynamical systems and establish sufficient conditions to analyze the finite-time closed-loop performance of such methods in terms of the additional cost incurred due to suboptimality. Finite-time guarantees allow the control design to distribute a limited computational budget over a time horizon and estimate the on-the-go loss in performance due to suboptimality. We study exponential incremental input-to-state stabilizing policies and show that for nonlinear systems, under some mild conditions, this property is directly implied by exponential stability without further assumptions on global smoothness. The analysis is showcased on a suboptimal model predictive control use case.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anomaly Detection | MVTec-AD (test) | I-AUROC97.2 | 226 | |
| Anomaly Localization | MVTec-AD (test) | Pixel AUROC96.8 | 181 | |
| Anomaly Detection | VisA (test) | I-AUROC86.8 | 91 | |
| Anomaly Localization | MPDD (test) | Pixel AUROC0.948 | 60 | |
| Anomaly Detection | MPDD (test) | Image-level AU-ROC82.8 | 54 | |
| Anomaly Localization | VisA (test) | P-AUROC96 | 37 | |
| Anomaly Localization | PCB-Bank (test) | P-AUROC96.9 | 16 | |
| Anomaly Detection | PCB-Bank (test) | I-AUROC89 | 3 | |
| Anomaly Detection | Avg (MVTec-AD, MPDD, VisA, PCB-Bank) (test) | I-AUROC89 | 3 | |
| Anomaly Localization | Avg (MVTec-AD, MPDD, VisA, PCB-Bank) (test) | P-AUROC96.1 | 3 |